Re: Strange message with autochange

[James Bailey]

On 28.02.2010, at 10:56, Xavier Scheuer wrote:

> 2010/2/28 James Bailey <address@hidden>:
>
> > The only problem I have with this is that I don't think that manual
> > staff changes are supposed to work with autochange.
>
> …
> So, according to the doc, it should be possible to mix automatic and
> manual staff changes.
> Or this sentence should be more explicit about what is implied with
> "additional control"...

I think the additional control is actually controlling things that  
belong to the staff engraver. A more descriptive explanation wouldn't  
hurt.

> From what I understand it is just because "The staff switches may not
> end up in optimal places" (listen, /with the automatic behaviour/).
> But if you can mix manual and automatic, then you can get over it.

I'm still not convinced that the autochanger was ever meant to be  
mixed with the manual changer. It seems that, if anything, the bug is  
that it's possible to have manual staff changes whilst using the  
autochanger.
> …
>   The autochanger switches on the basis of the pitch (middle C is the
>   turning point), and __it looks ahead **skipping over rests** to
>   switch in advance__
>
> So George_, your bug seems to be a "side effect" of this rest skipping
> functionality.
I actually wouldn't call that a bug. I would call it the intended  
behavior. The autochanger looks to where it will put the next note,  
then places the previous rest on the same staff.